Skip to main content

About your Search

20121205
20121213
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
about the fiscal cliff negotiations and whether compromise or sticking to principles should be what members of congress and the president should do here. a couple of weets this morning. when leaders say -- when people say leaders should stick to their principles, they mean leaders should stick to my principles. a lot of columns this morning talking about this issue, the ongoing fiscal cliff negotiations. here is "the washington post." we are taking your thoughts on the issue. but gutted the independent line. welcome to the "washington journal." caller: i agree also with a caller on the democrat line. i agree with what he was referring to -- c-span changing a with bias. the issues, they did not talk about it. the ones who are behind it are the political parties. the industrial military complex host: if the country does off of the fiscal cliff, who do you think it's more of the blame on this? it is the president of the united states or congress? caller: the people are being brainwashed to not speak up and get together like an tahrir square and rise up and say, we have to do it with th
that possibly as part of the fiscal cliff negotiations. caller: right. it will cost them in the long run. host: because the money is coming out of social security. politicians say that will not happen. they say social security will have its money. caller: they tell you all kinds of things. host: john in atlanta, democratic caller. caller: how are you? it seems like it is open phones. i think as far as the fiscal cliff is concerned, the democrats and republicans need to come together and they need to do that rather quickly, because that's the way i feel about it. host: do you think it decides it should just agree to pass the tax cuts -- extend the tax cuts for middle-class americans and then wait until later to resume the debate over spending and tax cuts for wealthy americans? caller: they should start with that. and if they agree on that, then they can go on to the next thing. but this lagging and dragging along on both sides makes no sense. host: here is the washington post this morning. [video clip] >> i don't think the issue right now has to do with sitting in a room. the issue right now t
to negotiate and create another fiscal cliff down the road. i hope we will not do that. i still think there is time before the end of the year to make that happen, but again, if it does not happen, unfortunately what that does is throw us into another debt ceiling situation, which is just not good for our country. we would be so much better off starting off on january 1 with this in the rearview mirror. our economy would take off and our country would be so much better off. >> chris, you understand the politics of the house from both sides. can john boehner cut a deal without eric cantor and paul ryan? >> i have a pretty good understanding of the house, but i always am a little afraid of wandering into house republican leadership politics. just to broaden the question a little bit -- i think the question is whether or not the speaker is going to be able to bring a good part of his caucus with him. that or require a united leadership team. >> i am talking short-term -- the next two or three weeks. >> i think that is going to be a requirement. i think one of the decisions the speaker wi
"/abc poll of handling of fiscal cliff negotiations, obama, 47% approve, 46% disapprove. boehner, 24% approve. 54% disapprove. i would say, the republican party continues to have a branding problem. >> there is. >> or a disintegrating problem in washington. >> it is a branding problem that was born of chaos in the primary process that continues. there is a great "politico" article that actually talks about the republican problem with branding. and talks about -- >> it's a great piece. >> have you seen this? >> yeah. >> the republican party has a branding problem. these are researchers that say -- we asked 22, 23 different topics, whether americans related more to the democratic party or the republican party. 22 of the 23, they appeal more to democrats. >> yeah. >> it is a generalized, massive branding problem over what's happened nationally over the past year. >> except in the south. >> the piece, in part, points out that unlike people who sit around here, most people, normal people out there in america react emotionally to politics when they hear phrases, they react emotionally. does this re
speeches. see the senate live on c-span to. negotiations continue on the fiscal cliff. this morning, negotiations and how they were going. host: let's begin with what is business forward? guest: it is an organization with a very simple mission. our job is to try to make it easier for business leaders are around the country to speak out on issues of public policy. host: is this a brand-new organization? guest: we have been around for about three and a half years. our target market our business leaders around the country. we try to get them more involved in the policy-making process. we bring administration officials, members of congress out to cities across the country to do briefings with business leaders and then we bring those business leaders to washington to tell them how to grow jobs and how to recover. what do the business leaders say to the president? guest: we have brought 50 plus different groups to the white house to talk to the president's economic advisers. we have brought about 370 business leaders representing 32 different states. the message they are giving is pretty
" continues. host: we have been breaking apart the fiscal cliff talks, looking a different policy aspects of the negotiations and today we focus on domestic spending. charles clark, senior correspondent with government executive me -- media group is here. sequestration, if it happens, we talk about automatic spending cuts, but what is sequestration? they usedthe 1980's, to talk about the vegomatic, a late-night advertisement that did the cutting for you. in 2011, congress had a super committee that was supposed to determine the cuts and they failed. the backup plan was something nobody wanted, but it was supposed to put fear into everyone, and that was across- the-board cuts of about $500 billion over 10 years. host: in domestic spending? guest: yes, and another $500 billion in national security- related spending. host: in 2013, we're talking about a total of $109 billion in cuts. discretionary spending makes up about $38 billion. non-defense mandatory makes up about $17 billion. can you explain the difference? guest: mandatory has to do with entitlement programs that beneficiaries are pe
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)